Content
63%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A genuinely actionable skill body: exact snapshot commands, a full canonical output template, explicit anti-patterns, and a verification-first stance on pending work. Its weaknesses are token efficiency and structure — meta-prose (attributions, level-of-application, inspiration notes) inflates the body, and the cross-vendor material plus unlinked policy references would be better split into a one-level-deep reference file.
Suggestions
Move the 'Handoff cross-vendor' section into a separate reference file (e.g. references/cross-vendor.md) and link it in one line, keeping SKILL.md focused on the core handoff protocol.
Trim the attribution and positioning prose (inspiration blockquote, 'Nível de aplicação' paragraph, 'conceito absorvido, texto reescrito' notes) to single-line citations.
Make the inline references actionable: give actual paths/links for the cited policies (GLOBAL.md, policies/handoffs.md, etc.) and include the concrete grep command for TODO verification in step 2.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The protocol and template are terse and assume Claude's competence, but several sections pad tokens: the inspiration blockquote, the "Nível de aplicação: mais baixo que os providers/adapters..." paragraph, and the long attribution prose in the cross-vendor section ("conceito absorvido, texto reescrito. Distinto do Output Canônico..."). Anchor 3 (mostly efficient, could be tightened) fits better than 4, where over-explanation would be only minor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete and executable throughout: exact snapshot commands (git status/branch/log), a canonical output path pattern, a complete fill-in markdown template, and specific per-audience handoff prompts. Not 5: a few spots stay high-level, e.g. "TODOs novos introduzidos nesta sessao (grep recente)" gives no actual grep command and "<comandos de setup>" leaves setup unspecified. Not 3: the guidance is genuinely executable, not pseudocode. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 5-step protocol is clearly sequenced, and step 2 embeds a validation mindset ("cada item vem de rodar o comando agora, nao de memoria da sessao") while step 3 requires a success criterion. Not 5: there is no explicit error-recovery/feedback loop (e.g. what to do if the snapshot commands fail or the state is not verifiable), so checkpoints are present but not looped. Not 3: the sequence and most checkpoints are explicit, not implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a single 170-line file with well-labeled sections, but the cross-vendor trajectory section (~20 lines of conceptual material only loosely coupled to the core protocol) is inline content that would sit better in a separate reference file, and governance references ("policies/handoffs.md", "GLOBAL.md") are bare names with no paths or links. Anchor 3 (content that should be separate is inline; references not clearly signaled) fits better than 4. Not 2: the document is well-sectioned and navigable, not an unstructured wall. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |